Hillary's speech

[Xavier434]

Hilary is very good public speaker and I really enjoyed her speech. She did the right thing. I may not agree with everything she has to say all of time, but no one will convince me that she doesn't speak what she truly feels is for the best beyond her own selfish desires much more so than a lot of other big time politicians.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Nothing about personal responsibility? I think you need to listen to her speech again.As I recall she basically said that those who work hard should succeed. I didn't hear anything about freebies.

I heard the speech and then read the transcript, nothing about personal responsibility. Sure, she wants those to work hard to succeed, but she makes it clear that even those who don't need to be provided for. That was pretty much the running theme, more government involvement and "help" to make America great again -- ignoring that fact that it's not the government that made America great. In fact, the government doesn't make anything great, it's the people.

Ever her sob story example of the mother adopting kids furthered the theme of more government social squandering, it basically said "we need more government coverage for her and the kids", nothing about setting up a framework such that people can get their own private healthcare. Nope, just more government.

Like I said, she did a good job unititing the dems, because a lot of them believe that drivel. Her ideas sucked back when WJC was president, they sucked when she was running for president, and they still suck now.

 

[cubeless]

i'm sure it's just me, but the 'being chased through the woods' part was a little weird... i need to go read the speech and see if what i thought i heard was what she said... it sure seemed like a 'race based' thing vs. a "win the contest" thing... just seemed like the wrong metaphor choice unless u wanted to point out race...

and since it's all rhetoric anyways, she could have/should have pumped bo a bit more "as i have come to know him over the past few months i'm loving/trusting/believing in him more..." type stuff... not just "he's the candidate for the dems - vote for him..."...

but if the goal was (like it seemed in a lot of other speeches) to pump the speaker as much as bo, then it certainly hit its points...

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Exactly as I expected. The victim mentality was in plain view, much of her theme was basically about how the government should "help" and provide everything for everyone instead of people doing for themselves. No personal responsibility, just lots of drivel about how much more of our money the government can squander on corrupt social programs.

Overall she did a nice job in trying to unify the dems.

Nothing about personal responsibility? I think you need to listen to her speech again.As I recall she basically said that those who work hard should succeed. I didn't hear anything about freebies.

working hard doesn't mean u will succeed... success is not a right... work hard at a low paying job and borrow 100% of the overpriced cost of a house u could never afford and u will fail...

but as we move to socialism more things that capitalism as provided will become rights... and will then become less available... it's sure not perfect now, but it can sure be worse...

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Nothing about personal responsibility? I think you need to listen to her speech again.As I recall she basically said that those who work hard should succeed. I didn't hear anything about freebies.

I heard the speech and then read the transcript, nothing about personal responsibility. Sure, she wants those to work hard to succeed, but she makes it clear that even those who don't need to be provided for. That was pretty much the running theme, more government involvement and "help" to make America great again -- ignoring that fact that it's not the government that made America great. In fact, the government doesn't make anything great, it's the people.

Ever her sob story example of the mother adopting kids furthered the theme of more government social squandering, it basically said "we need more government coverage for her and the kids", nothing about setting up a framework such that people can get their own private healthcare. Nope, just more government.

Like I said, she did a good job unititing the dems, because a lot of them believe that drivel. Her ideas sucked back when WJC was president, they sucked when she was running for president, and they still suck now.

You really cannot force people to take personal responsibility. I know that is what everyone wants including myself, but you cannot do it. The people need to actively decide that amongst themselves. That's the problem. You can pressure them to do it by taking things away from them, but when that happens people just tend to get desperate and if you push too much they end up becoming defiant. This means more crime, more irresponsibility, a worse economy, and an increase in the self destruction of future generations of potentially responsible Americans. It does not result in more hard working and responsible Americans. Not to mention that adding too much pressure will end up hurting those who may wish to be responsible, but are far too young to do anything about it currently in their life. Making things much more difficult for lazy and irresponsible mom and dad is not going to increase the chances of their kids trying to exceed their parents. All it will do is increase the chances of broken homes and self destructive family units which in turn increases the chances of the kids walking the same path as mom and dad if not worse.

We need to give people more opportunity to become responsible in a way which doesn't just shatter the ground which is currently under their feat and cause them so much stress that they make even worse decisions. These decisions effect everyone both rich and poor no matter how you slice it. Not good. The only thing the government can really do is create more opportunity to make it easier for people to take more personal responsibility. Once such thigns are put in place, taking advantage of those opportunities lies completely in the hands of the citizens. Unfortunately, no one has discovered a method which really increases the efficiency of what we currently have in place. Sure, we could wipe out all of those things which are supposed to help but I don't see the point. There was a time when we didn't have nearly as many social programs, but the problems were still there which is why they were created in the first place. They do not work as effectively as I wish they would, but they most certainly prevent the decisions of irresponsible people from effecting my life more so than if they didn't exist at all. I don't want more crime and more desperate poverty around where I live and I am willing to pay for it.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: jpeyton
?No Way, No How, NOBAMA?

Fixed :laugh:

She did what she was supposed to do. She gave a great speech and did more to push for unity than anyone could've asked. Now the Clinton haters can go fvck themselves.

Time will tell how many of her supporters were moved.

'Clinton Haters'? What is with you bitter people? I'm an Obama supporter. I loved Bill as president and I like Hillary. I just think Obama is a better candidate.

You and your bitter ilk really need to get over yourself and let it go. Find another cause. A worthy cause.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Nothing about personal responsibility? I think you need to listen to her speech again.As I recall she basically said that those who work hard should succeed. I didn't hear anything about freebies.

I heard the speech and then read the transcript, nothing about personal responsibility. Sure, she wants those to work hard to succeed, but she makes it clear that even those who don't need to be provided for. That was pretty much the running theme, more government involvement and "help" to make America great again -- ignoring that fact that it's not the government that made America great. In fact, the government doesn't make anything great, it's the people.

Ever her sob story example of the mother adopting kids furthered the theme of more government social squandering, it basically said "we need more government coverage for her and the kids", nothing about setting up a framework such that people can get their own private healthcare. Nope, just more government.

Like I said, she did a good job unititing the dems, because a lot of them believe that drivel. Her ideas sucked back when WJC was president, they sucked when she was running for president, and they still suck now.

The problem is you don't understand how insurance works. There is absolutely no way you are going to compel a private insurance company to voluntarily cover someone with expensive preexisting conditions, or someone who's older. I don't know what fantasy world you folks live in where the market gets everyone covered.

You know what a handout is? A $2500 tax credit

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
The problem is you don't understand how insurance works. There is absolutely no way you are going to compel a private insurance company to voluntarily cover someone with expensive preexisting conditions, or someone who's older. I don't know what fantasy world you folks live in where the market gets everyone covered.

Exactly. The free market is in the business to make money and nothing else. A health insurance industry is in the business to make the most money first and provide health insurance second. That kind of thinking when it comes to health care will not get my vote if one wishes to shape the majority of the industry in that fashion. Some things are just more important than making money.

 

[Starbuck1975]

seriously, how much more can Hillary possibly do before people stop accusing her of trying to sabotage Obama?

It is not what she is doing, it is what her surrogates are doing in the background...she has gone through the motions of supporting Obama, but has not done much to calm the flames from her disgruntled base.

Her speech was predictable and largely unremarkable. She said what she needed to say, and that was about it.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

seriously, how much more can Hillary possibly do before people stop accusing her of trying to sabotage Obama?

It is not what she is doing, it is what her surrogates are doing in the background...she has gone through the motions of supporting Obama, but has not done much to calm the flames from her disgruntled base.

Her speech was predictable and largely unremarkable. She said what she needed to say, and that was about it.

In other word, Obama don't need to do anything to court Clinton supporters and he can continue to diss Clinton and her supporter throughout the process. And it's Clinton's job to persuade all those pissed off ppl to support Obama no matter what he does?

 

[ayabe]

I thought it was the best speech she's ever given by a mile.

You really have to question some of the detractors and what they are really all about.

Like THIS f'ing clown. These people are RNC operatives, there's no doubt about it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

In other word, Obama don't need to do anything to court Clinton supporters and he can continue to diss Clinton and her supporter throughout the process. And it's Clinton's job to persuade all those pissed off ppl to support Obama no matter what he does?

Essentially Yes...Obama won the nomination, fair and square, plain and simple...how is Obama "dissing" Clintons supporters...Clinton and her surrogates are the ones who created the gender centric animosity towards her losing the nomination, which is now the rallying cry for her most loyal followers.

If Clinton is truly a leader, and truly a Democrat, she should be at the forefront of any effort to soothe her disgruntled base.

Clintons values are core Democrat values, so there is nothing particularly unique or special about her supporters that require catering to...beyond the emotional response of their perhaps not seeing a female President in their lifetime.

Get over it.

 

[nageov3t]

how is Obama "dissing" Clintons supporters.

crappy hotel rooms for donors and floor locations for Clinton states, basically. (and even though I didn't want Hillary to be VP, I can understand why Clintonistas are miffed that Obama didn't even go through the motions of considering her, when polls seem to consistently show an Obama/Clinton ticket as the one thing that could push him above the 50% threshold)

I think NJ is actually somewhere out past Alaska. lol.

 

[lupi]

Good speach, probably covered some areas more openly that recommended for the independent vote. Did nice mentioning that guy with an odd name that doesn't look like the rest of us without having to prostrate herself. In the end many of her most adamant supporters are probably wondering why they don't see her name on the ballot.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I thought it was the best speech she's ever given by a mile.

You really have to question some of the detractors and what they are really all about.

Like THIS f'ing clown. These people are RNC operatives, there's no doubt about it.

If they're really bitter Hillary supporters then I pity them and their worthless lives. If they're RNC operatives hopefully they'll get exposed for what they really are. It would give the 24 hour news channels something to chew on for a while.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I can understand why Clintonistas are miffed that Obama didn't even go through the motions of considering her

The greatest myth of the post-Clinton campaign implosion. The entire nomination process vetted her as a candidate, and talking heads the world over have discussed the PROs and CONs of a joint ticket...I agree that the CONs outweighed the PROs, although Obama's selection of Biden made it a zero sum game.

crappy hotel rooms for donors

The way some of her donors behave, well deserved perhaps.

floor locations for Clinton states

Or confidence that those states will vote Democrat regardless, so why not elevate the states in play?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: loki8481

how is Obama "dissing" Clintons supporters.

crappy hotel rooms for donors and floor locations for Clinton states, basically. (and even though I didn't want Hillary to be VP, I can understand why Clintonistas are miffed that Obama didn't even go through the motions of considering her, when polls seem to consistently show an Obama/Clinton ticket as the one thing that could push him above the 50% threshold)

I think NJ is actually somewhere out past Alaska. lol.

As far as the hotel rooms and floor locations, 'To the victor go the spoils'. What's wrong with Obama's camp rewarding those who supported them and put them where they are? I would expect the same were the shoe on the other food and I'd have no problem with it.

What's worse? Putting Hillary through the VP process for 'show' when there's no intent on choosing her or not putting her through the process? IMO the former is insulting and the latter is politics.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

In other word, Obama don't need to do anything to court Clinton supporters and he can continue to diss Clinton and her supporter throughout the process. And it's Clinton's job to persuade all those pissed off ppl to support Obama no matter what he does?

Essentially Yes...Obama won the nomination, fair and square, plain and simple...how is Obama "dissing" Clintons supporters...Clinton and her surrogates are the ones who created the gender centric animosity towards her losing the nomination, which is now the rallying cry for her most loyal followers.

If Clinton is truly a leader, and truly a Democrat, she should be at the forefront of any effort to soothe her disgruntled base.

Clintons values are core Democrat values, so there is nothing particularly unique or special about her supporters that require catering to...beyond the emotional response of their perhaps not seeing a female President in their lifetime.

Get over it.

Yeah sure, leaving someone with millions of supporters off the ticket, and didn't even consider her was not dissing. And Clinton is much more then just being a female, she is more on topic then Obama whose entire campaign is based on hope, change and other feel good vague stuff.

This is the type of BS attitude from Obama ppl that is gonna keep the party separated. Just because you ppl follow Obama unconditionally like following some rock star doesn't mean other ppl will do the same. He need to earn the respect and the vote from the Clinton supporters, it's not Clintons job to do that for him.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah sure, leaving someone with millions of supporters off the ticket, and didn't even consider her was not dissing. And Clinton is much more then just being a female, she is more on topic then Obama whose entire campaign is based on hope, change and other feel good vague stuff.

Their messages and platforms are essentially the same...the Democrat nomination process was won and lost on strategy, not content or theme. Hillary made two critical errors...not putting the caucus states in play, and not keeping her advisors and husband on a leash, leading to Obama's decisive victories in Iowa and South Carolina.

This is the type of BS attitude from Obama ppl that is gonna keep the party separated. Just because you ppl follow Obama unconditionally like following some rock star doesn't mean other ppl will do the same. He need to earn the respect and the vote from the Clinton supporters, it's not Clintons job to do that for him.

McCain and the Republicans are counting on manipulating the emotions of people like you to win the Presidency.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

seriously, how much more can Hillary possibly do before people stop accusing her of trying to sabotage Obama?

It is not what she is doing, it is what her surrogates are doing in the background...she has gone through the motions of supporting Obama, but has not done much to calm the flames from her disgruntled base.

Her speech was predictable and largely unremarkable. She said what she needed to say, and that was about it.

To put it in perspective....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...e_him_right_126276.htm

SHE DONE HIM RIGHT
SEN. CLINTON DELIVERS ALL OBAMA COULD ASK
Posted: 5:54 am
August 27, 2008

WHY is Hillary Clinton not Barack Obama's running mate?

That question had to be on many minds last night as Clinton delivered a rousing endorsement of Obama - a speech that moved between inspiration and attack, hitting every note perfectly.

The backdrop was constant carping that Hillary hasn't done enough for the candidate she lost the primary to.

Never mind that she has behaved immeasurably better than losing candidates before her who'd won far less support than she did.

It's easy to get confused about this, since so many in the anti-Hillary media who hysterically demanded her exit from the race have conveniently edited out from history anything that doesn't fit into their nonsense narrative, as if her campaign invented party discord.

Let's review.

Hillary Clinton - amid outrage at her behavior - made her concession speech and endorsed Obama five days after the last primary. The way Obama's fans in the media tell it, you'd think she took months. Compare to 1984, when Gary Hart waited nearly a month to concede the race to Walter Mondale. Ted Kennedy, who in the ultimate act of disunity challenged an incumbent Democratic president in 1980, waited until the convention to concede to Jimmy Carter.

When Kennedy finally did concede, it was barely distinguishable from a temper tantrum. CBS's Walter Cronkite reported, "Kennedy leaves the stand, sober, unsmiling. There will be no pictures in tomorrow morning's paper, and none for posterity, of Ted Kennedy holding Jimmy Carter's hand aloft."

As Steve Kornacki (one of the few reporters to show an interest in accurate historical analogies this campaign season) aptly pointed out in The New York Observer, when Kennedy and Hart were running much farther back in their bids for the nomination - Kennedy was trailing by 1,000 delegates in '80; Hart by 600 in '84 - they didn't get hit by any serious pressure to drop out.

Clinton, by contrast, was harassed by media to drop out even as she was winning major states and running neck-and-neck with Obama in the popular vote.

When she considered taking the fight to the convention, the idea was greeted with disbelief that she'd be so selfish. Yet Hart and Kennedy both fought on at the convention; Kennedy only conceded after failing to change party rules to his favor. It's this double standard that so enrages Hillary supporters.

Obama supporters and party leaders continue to insult Hillary voters - and then seem shocked when so many of them say they're going to vote Republican this year.

Nancy Pelosi, underscoring why Congress under her leadership has an approval rating teetering on single digits, lectured female Hillary supporters in an interview this week - telling them to not wallow in defeat. Said the multimillionairess daughter of privilege: "I think that women, we have to get away from the politics of victim. This is about you go out there and you fight."

Thanks, Nancy. I'm sure all the working-class women who supported Hillary didn't realize that the real problem is they need to get off their butts and "go out there and fight." But now they know that being disappointed that their candidate didn't win - an emotion plenty of men like, say, Ted Kennedy supporters in 1980 have experienced - is actually just being a whiny "victim."

This is why John McCain stands at the ready to scoop up any disaffected Clinton supporters.

Just as the Democrats' convention was beginning in Denver, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee unleashed four TV ads geared toward Hillary voters. (Her response: "I am Hillary Clinton and I did not approve this message.")

The RNC held a press conference with four Democrats who declared their support for McCain since Clinton isn't on the ticket. Proving that truth is stranger than fiction, Hillary die-hards gathered at an RNC -sponsored "Happy Hour for Hillary" in Denver. (Clinton was invited, but demurred.)

And, with last night's speech, she pulled out all the stops for Obama. She's done all she could - now the ball's in his court.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yeah sure, leaving someone with millions of supporters off the ticket, and didn't even consider her was not dissing. And Clinton is much more then just being a female, she is more on topic then Obama whose entire campaign is based on hope, change and other feel good vague stuff.

Their messages and platforms are essentially the same...the Democrat nomination process was won and lost on strategy, not content or theme. Hillary made two critical errors...not putting the caucus states in play, and not keeping her advisors and husband on a leash, leading to Obama's decisive victories in Iowa and South Carolina.

This is the type of BS attitude from Obama ppl that is gonna keep the party separated. Just because you ppl follow Obama unconditionally like following some rock star doesn't mean other ppl will do the same. He need to earn the respect and the vote from the Clinton supporters, it's not Clintons job to do that for him.

McCain and the Republicans are counting on manipulating the emotions of people like you to win the Presidency.

The reason there is emotion to be manipulated is that Obama handled the situation like crap for someone called "Uniter"

 

[Starbuck1975]

To put it in perspective....

A fair interpretation, but not without some gaps. Clinton is more politically saavy than Kennedy or Hart...in taking their contentions to the convention floor, Kennedy and Hart both essentially killed any chance of their ever running for President again.

So Clinton gives the Obama endorsement speech, while her most vocal supporters, like Mark Penn, are out there continuing to sew the seeds of discourse...and in the process, somewhat undermining Obama as a candidate.

Have no doubts that Clinton will run again in 2012 if Obama loses, and potentially in 2016 if Obama wins.

 

[lupi]

I said months ago that she was never going to be the vp choice unless it was hussein instead of edwards getting caught leaving the hotel room of the blonde chick. Comrade michelle hates her way too much to have ever allowed that without extreme circumstances.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: lupi
I said months ago that she was never going to be the vp choice unless it was hussein instead of edwards getting caught leaving the hotel room of the blonde chick. Comrade michelle hates her way too much to have ever allowed that without extreme circumstances.

:roll: She wasn't going to be the VP choice because she ran a bitter campaign against him. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Lemon law]

Obama must really hate the Clinton's because he is allocating both Hillary and Bill the right to address the convention on separate nights. And before you test your sarcasm meter batteries, I say this sarcastically.

All in all the democratic nomination of 2008 was really close, two really strong and similar candidates battled to the very end. Even young whippersnappers are unlikely to see a democratic primary this close in their lifetime. I voted for Obama but if Hillary had won, I would have been almost as happy to support her in the general election. But in any protracted primary elections, grudges are built up, but if Obama wins the general election, Hillary will gain power also.

Now I await the Bill Clinton speech tonight to hopefully seal the deal.